situation ethics essay introduction

A Level Philosophy & Religious Studies

Situation Ethics

This page: full notes      a* summary notes       c/b summary notes, introduction.

Situation ethics was created by Joseph Fletcher in the 1960s. It is a product of its time, and deliberately so. The 60s were defined by radical social movements aimed at overthrowing traditional ways of life which were seen as oppressive. Religion faces a dilemma in the face of such modernising forces; whether to adapt and reform itself or attempt to carry on as if nothing had changed. Fletcher is a classic example of adaptation. His approach embodies liberal Christianity in many ways. He rejected the traditional approach to Christian ethics of strict adherence to moral laws. Instead he attempted a reduction of Christian ethics to what many would agree is the overarching theme of Jesus’ ethics: love.

Legalism, situation ethics & antinomianism

Legalism is the view that people require fixed rules to follow. Antinomianism is the view that there are no rules or laws to follow at all. Fletcher claimed that his situation ethics was a middle ground which avoids the problems of each extreme while retaining the benefit of each. The downside of legalism is that it cannot take the situation into account, the downside of antinomianism is that it leads to moral chaos. The upside of legalism is that it has clear guidance for people to follow, the upside of antinomianism is that it takes the situation into account. Situation ethics takes the situation into account, give people clear guidance and avoids moral chaos. It does this by claiming that love is the one single absolute principle which should be applied to all situations. The action that is good is the one which has the most loving consequence in the situation you are in.  

The importance of Agape in Christianity is drawn from Jesus saying that the ‘greatest commandment’ is to ‘love your neighbour as yourself’. Fletcher interprets that as suggesting all other religious rules, principles and commandments only have value insofar as they enable Agape. For example, the 10 commandments clearly state that murder is wrong. However, Fletcher gives the example of a family hiding from bandits when their baby started crying, which would reveal their hiding place. Fletcher said it’s the most loving thing to kill the baby because the situation was that they would otherwise all die anyway, including the baby.

The four working principles

The four working principles are involved in the application of the guiding principle of agape to moral situations.

Pragmatism. An action must be calibrated to the reality of the situation.

Relativism . Fletcher claimed his theory “relativizes the absolute, it does not absolutize the relative”.  Relativizing the absolute means that absolutes like “Do not kill” become relative to love. If it has a loving outcome to kill, such as euthanasia sometimes can, then that absolute is false relative to love. Not absolutizing the relative means that it is not total relativism where any moral claim could be justified. It is always relative to love which means that only moral claims which are valid when relative to love will be justified for Fletcher.

Positivism. Natural law and Kantian ethics are based on reason but Fletcher thought ethics had to begin with faith in love because Fletcher thought no rational answer can be given for why someone should love as it is a matter of faith in Jesus’ command to love your neighbour as yourself.

Personalism. Situation ethics puts people above rules. As Jesus said “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”. Fletcher claims this shows that Jesus knew rules could be broken if it was for the good of humanity to do so.

The six fundamental principles

The six fundamental principles/propositions are axioms which follow from agape being at the centre of ethics.

Only love is intrinsically good. Everything else has conditional value depending on whether it helps or hurts people, but love is always unconditionally and therefore intrinsically good.

The ruling norm of Christian decision is love; nothing else.

Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing else.  Fletcher think that maximising agape is the only ethical goal. Many think that justiice is an ethical goal, so Fletcher here is explaining that justice actually reduces to love, it is merely the question of how widely and fairly love is distributed.

Love wills the neighbour’s good whether we like him or not. Jesus called on us to love our neighbour no matter who they are, which includes people we don’t like.

Only the end justifies the means; nothing else. The is Fletcher’s consequentialism. If the consequence of an action is the most loving possible then it is good, it doesn’t matter what the action is. The end of maximising agape justifies the means we use to produce it.

Love decides there and then. When we are faced with a moral choice we have to decide there and then in that situation what the right thing to do is.

Fletcher’s views on conscience

Fletcher thought that the conscience was what enabled you to figure out the requirements of agape in your situation. He said conscience was a verb not a noun, indicating he disagreed with the traditional view that conscience is an internal moral compass or mental ability to intuitively know what is right or wrong.

Whether situation ethics grants people too much freedom

Strength of situation ethics:  Situation ethics is designed for modern society. Fletcher and Robinson argue (influenced by Bonhoeffer) that humanity has ‘come of age’, meaning become more mature. In medieval and ancient times, people in general were less educated and less self-controlling. This meant that they needed fixed ridged clear rules to follow, because they could not be trusted to understand and act on the nuances and complexities in how a rule could justifiably be bent or broken if the situation called for it. However, now people are more civilised, to the point that granting them more autonomy will increase love without risking the stability of society.

Weakness: William Barclay disagreed. He argues that situation ethics gives moral agents a dangerous amount of freedom. For freedom to be good, love has to be perfect. If there is no or not enough love then ‘freedom can become selfishness and even cruelty’. If everyone was a saint, then situation ethics would be perfect. Barclay argues mankind has not yet come of age and so ‘still needs the crutch and protection of law’.

Final judgement defending Situation ethics:

Barclay’s argument fails because legalism has worse downsides. It may be true that some would abuse the autonomy situation ethics grants them. However, that is arguably not as bad compared with the dangers of legalistic morality, which is inflexible and outdated. Furthermore, the direction of history involves people becoming more educated and civilised and so it makes sense for Fletcher to develop a morality which reflects the fact that people can be trusted with more freedom.

Final judgement critiquing Situation ethics:

Barclay’s argument is successful because although people might appear improved in modern times, if granted the freedom (and thus power) to do what they want, they won’t choose the loving thing they will choose the selfish or even the cruel thing. This is essentially the classic argument that power corrupts. It also echoes the debate about the extent to which human nature is corrupt, such as by original sin. Also relevant is psychology like the Stanford prison experiment and literature like lord of the flies. It is a well-known feature of human psychology that power is corrupting. The freedom to decide what is good or bad without external supervision of legalistic laws grants humans more power and thereby corrupts them.

Fletcher vs sola scriptura

One of the strengths of situation ethics is that Fletcher founded it on a liberal approach to the Bible. He argued that traditional legalistic approaches to the bible face a dilemma. They could take the Bible literally, but no one ever can or wants to live that way. Fletcher points to the example of ‘do not resist an evil person’. They could interpret the Bible, but it is impossible to know which interpretation is correct, e.g. of the sermon on the mount.

Fletcher concludes that the Bible should not be thought of as a legalistic ‘rules book’. Ethical teachings like the sermon on the mount at most offer us ‘some paradigms or suggestions’. This makes Fletcher’s approach to the Bible an example of the liberal view of inspiration; that the Bible is not the perfect word of God. So, although the Bible states that many things (e.g. killing, homosexuality and adultery) are wrong, Fletcher doesn’t think a Christian should view those as unbreakable rules. Whatever maximises agape is allowed, no matter the action. This is part of Fletcher’s argument against legalism.

Fletcher focuses on the most prevalent ethical theme of the Bible – love. This is the approach of many liberal Christians. When you boil it down, the Bible, especially the teachings of Jesus and ethics of St Paul, are mainly focused on love and things which follow from love like forgiveness.

Weakness: Although love is central, it is not the only element of Biblical Christian ethics. Fletcher faces the criticism that his theory cannot be considered properly Christian, since it seems to only follow the command to love, ignoring most of the teachings in the Bible. Martin Luther’s theory of ‘sola scriptura’ argues that the ‘Bible alone’ is the source of moral authority, not the autonomous individual deciding the demands of agape in their situation. Sola scriptura protestant W. L. Craig argues that the Bible shows that God’s Justice is just as important as his love.

Fletcher has diluted Christian ethics into just loving and wanting the best for others. That is not distinctive from secular morality or just general well-wishing.

Final judgement defending situation ethics:

Craig could be right that God’s justice is equally important to love, or perhaps Fletcher is still right that justice is just love distributed.

This simply further proves Fletcher’s point about the impossibility of figuring out exactly what the Bible meant. So, should not view it as the perfect word of God but only as guidelines. Fletcher thus simply doesn’t regard it as a problem that he ignores, or thinks it justified to overrule with agape, most of the commands in the Bible.

Final judgement critiquing situation ethics:

Fletcher’s liberal approach to the bible is no better off than the approach of trying to interpret it. The themes and paradigms of the bible are also a matter of subjective interpretation.

Fletcher has not solved the problem of how to interpret the Bible, he has merely kicked the can down the road.

Situation ethics therefore fails to provide a convincing approach to Christian ethics and ends up sliding into antinomianism due to being subjective.

Whether situation ethics fits with the ethics of Jesus

A strength of Fletcher’s situation ethics is that it fits with the approach to ethics taken by Jesus. Jesus overturned rules (like that of Moses’ eye for an eye & life for a life), allowed the breaking of rules (like the sabbath) and said that the greatest commandment was to love your neighbours as yourself.

If one command is greater than another, then it seems like that means it takes priority and thus the lesser rule should be broken if it’s the loving thing to do. Fletcher’s situation ethics is a reasonable interpretation of what Jesus said. It’s hard to see what Jesus could have meant by agape being the greatest commandment except that it was greater than the others which seem to imply taking precedence over them.

Weakness: Richard Mouw points out that it makes no sense to reduce Christian ethics to only one of Jesus’ commands when Jesus made other commands too. It makes no logical sense to follow some of Jesus’ commands but not all of them. We either regard him as a source of moral authority or we don’t.   Pope Pius XII criticised situation ethics on similar grounds. Christ himself frequently spoke of the importance of following all the commandments. (Matthew 19:17 & John 14:15).  Fletcher is therefore unwittingly attacking Christ. Fletcher claims the ends justifies the means, but Romans 3:8 condemns that.

Mouw and Pius XII’s arguments are unsuccessful because they beg the question regarding the validity of taking a legalistic approach.

Certainly if we take all of Jesus’ commands as individually true, it is incoherent to only follow one of them. Fletcher’s point however is that the example of Jesus himself goes against that legalistic method of ethical accounting. Jesus himself was an example of taking a progressive and situationist approach to ethical commands. Reading and following Jesus like an inflexible legalist fails to incorporate that side of his approach. A full appreciation of Jesus’ ethics involves both legalism and situationism. In that case, it cannot be viewed legalistically. Fletcher does not want to disregard rules and commandments, only the insistence on the legalistic approach to their application.

Furthermore, would Jesus have bothered to make any other commandments if agape is the only one that is ultimately matters? If a commandment is only to be followed when it accords with agape, and should be ignored if it conflicts with agape, then agape is the only commandment you actually need.

It seems more logical to think that by calling it the ‘greatest’ commandment Jesus meant something else, such as only that it was the one which would be relevant to the most number of situations.

The subjectivity issue  

Love seems like a strong basis for ethics. Fletcher doesn’t mean simply acting based on the feeling of love. He means doing whatever action actually promotes a loving outcome. Ethical action on his theory has the strength of being orientated towards love but without the weakness of unreliable emotion.   Furthermore, agape is an even stronger basis than love. Agape doesn’t just mean love, it means Christian love, more specifically it means selfless love. It means the kind of love that Jesus recommended when he said we should love our neighbour as ourselves.   Some argue that love is subjective and therefore too unstable a basis for ethics. The Auschwitz guard might think they are doing a loving thing, for example. However, the Nazi does not love their neighbour (jews) the same way as they love themselves. Fletcher’s theory can’t be said to justify their action. A Nazi might think they act out of love, but it is not Christian self-less love of the neighbour.

Weakness: The subjectivity of agape.  Agape is defined as loving your neighbour as yourself. This is less subjective than love, because it requires symmetry in the way you love others and yourself. You can’t just go loving anyone in limitless ways, it has to be the way you love yourself, so it’s less subjective.

However, C. Hitchens pointed out that loving your neighbour as yourself is only as good if the way you love yourself is good. Furthermore, others might not want to be loved in the way you love yourself. The point we can take from Hitchens to critique situation ethics is: the way a person loves themselves is still subjective and therefore so is agape.

Two Nazis might say to each other that they hope the other would kill them if it were discovered they were Jewish, because they would rather be dead than Jewish so that is genuinely what they view as loving themselves. In that case, loving your neighbour as yourself for a Nazi would involve killing your neighbour if they were Jewish. A Viking or spartan warrior might become envious of those they kill in battle, since for them a glorious death is the highest honour. Killing people in battle would in such cases be seen as loving your neighbour as you would want to be loved.

However, this criticism is unsuccessful because it misunderstands agape.

Agape is not merely treating your neighbour as you would like to be treated, it is loving your neighbour as you love yourself.

Nazis and Viking warriors were not really gripped by self-love when creating and accepting their ethical judgements. They may have treated others as they would want to be treated, but they did not love others as they loved themselves. Perhaps they didn’t love themselves at all.

This criticism is successful because it shows that Fletcher’s abandonment of strict laws

Fletcher has diluted Christian ethics into just doing what a person subjectively perceives to be loving, which is not distinctive from secular morality or just general well-wishing. His theory is sliding into antinomianism.   

Whether situation ethics leads to antinomianism

Strength of situation ethics: situation ethics is perpetually relevant due to its flexibility in taking the situation into account.

Fletcher’s approach to conscience also enables this flexibility. It doesn’t reveal strict rules or precepts but is simply the way that an individual figures out what has a loving outcome in their situation.

This allows Christian ethics to adapt to the new ethical situations and issues associated with modern society and technology.

Weakness: Natural law based Catholic argument: relativism leads to antinomianism. Pope Pius XII accepts there is some truth in ethics depending on the situation. However, he argued that Aquinas’ Natural law approach to conscience already sufficiently does that job. Aquinas claimed prudence was a cardinal virtue. The primary precepts are not rules, they are applied to particular situations. It could even be justified to do an action normally considered sinful if the double effect justifies it. However, that is the limit of flexibility. Fletcher goes too far.

Catholics believe in ethical absolutes such as the sanctity of life. No matter what the pragmatic situation is, the value of life cannot be relativized. Fletcher’s working principles of pragmatism and relativism are wrong. The stability of society is threatened by relativistic ethical theories like Fletcher’s. Mother Theresa summed up this kind of argument well during her speech upon receiving the noble peace prize:

“the greatest destroyer of peace today is [abortion]. If a mother can kill her own child in her womb, what is left for you and me to kill each other?” – Mother Theresa.

The social order argument doesn’t seem to be true. Northern Europe has the most atheistic countries where quality of life is acted on instead of sanctity of life. Those countries are nonetheless some of the most stable and happy in the world. So, it just doesn’t look like it’s true that strict ethical principles like the sanctity of life is a requirement for social order. So, Fletcher’s situationism doesn’t lead to antinomianism.

This Catholic argument is successful because it is logical that if a culture devalues life than that could threaten social stability.

God designed us to live a certain way which involves preserving human life. If we go against that then our society will break down because living contrary to God’s design is unnatural and leads to immorality and social disorder. Moralities which focus on individual autonomy at the expense of social norms might seem to make sense in particular situations but are ultimately bad for society which needs clear fixed rules. Fletcher’s overly individualistic situationism thus leads to antinomianism.

Quick links

Open Book Publishers

• Language and Literature
• History and Culture
• Economics and Politics

Ethics for A-Level

Part i. normative ethics.

Chapter 5. Fletcher’s Situation Ethics

Texte intégral.

1 JF. Fletcher, Situation Ethics .

People like to wallow or cower in the security of the law . 1

2 K.E. Kirk, Conscience and its Problems , p. 331.

Every man must decide for himself according to his own estimate of conditions and consequences … 2

1. Situation Ethics Introduction

1 In the introduction to The Situation Ethics: The New Morality Joseph Fletcher (1905 – 1991) develops what he calls an ethical non-system. His book caused a “fire storm” amongst the public because it legitimised the general post-war dissatisfaction with authority. At the time it was written it seemed to make some radical claims such as that it is not wrong to have extramarital sex, to be homosexual, or to have an abortion. All that said, Fletcher’s work is not widely discussed nor respected in philosophical circles. It is badly argued, idiosyncratic and rehashes old ideas.

3 Ibid ., p. 15.

2 Although there is the clothing of religion in the book — Fletcher uses religious terms such as “ agápe ” and cites famous theologians such as Rudolf Bultmann (1884 – 1976) — the central ideas do not rely on the truth of any particular religion. As he says his argument has “… nothing special to do with theological… faith” 3

3 Fletcher calls this ethical “non-system” Situationism and a Bible story will illustrate the general point of the book. In Mark 3:1 – 6 we are told that Jesus healed a man with a withered hand in the Jewish Temple; an act which we would consider to demonstrate Jesus’s love for all. However, the Pharisees tell him off because he has performed this healing on the Sabbath day and the Jewish law says that no one can work on the Sabbath.

4 Fletcher’s work is an attempt to show how acts can be morally acceptable even if they go against so-called moral laws (if you’ve read Chapter 3 on Aristotle you might already have an answer to this). Fletcher says that Jesus’act is morally acceptable — despite going against the Jewish law — because he acted to bring about the most love.

2. Fletcher’s Overall Framework

5 Fletcher says there are two unattractive views in ethics: “ Legalism ” and “ Antinomianism ”, and one attractive view which sits in between them: “ Situationism ”.

6 Someone who is following the system of Legalism is someone who “blindly” observes moral rules without being sensitive to the situation. Fletcher has in mind a simple minded deontologist who holds that actions are right and wrong irrespective of the consequences. For example, we ought to tell the truth in all situations, even if this means that, say, millions of people die.

• 4 ‘Saudi Police “Stopped” Fire Rescue’, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/18744 (...)

7 Various Christian sects are legalistic; for instance, some might refuse medical help — such as blood transfusions — when someone in their community is ill because they think it is against God’s commands. Or consider an example of Islamic Legalism (obviously, just as in the Christian sect, these are not wholly representative of either religion). In 2002 the religious police of Saudi Arabia refused to let a group of girls escape from a burning building because they were wearing “inappropriate” clothing, which was against the will of Allah. One witness said he saw three policemen “beating young girls to prevent them from leaving the school because they were not wearing the abaya ”. 4 Fifteen girls died.

Antinomianism

8 The other extreme is Antinomianism (“anti” meaning against; “nominalism” meaning law). This is the view that says that an agent can do whatever he or she wants in a situation. Fletcher calls this an “ existential ” view because it is one that says that people are always free to choose what they want. Any supposed laws and rules limiting the actions of people are simply a way of trying to comfort them because they are scared of absolute freedom. If Antinomianism is right and if an agent believes that something is right, then it is. Antinomianism means the moral agent is erratic and random, is unpredictable, and any decisions taken are ad hoc . There are no laws nor guiding principles, just agents and their conscience and the institutions in which they find themselves.

A Middle Ethics: Situationism

9 We might think that Legalism and Antinomianism exhaust the possibilities. If we reject moral laws then are not we forced into lawless moral anarchy? Fletcher thinks not.

10 Fletcher says that there is a moral law, and hence he rejects Antinomianism. But there is only one moral law, so he rejects Legalism. Fletcher’s one moral law is that we ought to always act so as to bring about the most love for the most people (“ Agápē Calculus”). Fletcher’s Situationism is then a teleological theory. It is directed at the consequences that will determine whether an action is right or wrong.

11 Of course, any teleological theory will ask us to look at the details of the situation; consider Chapter 1 where we talk about Bentham and Mill’s Utilitarianism. So, Fletcher’s view is not unique. What makes his view different is the centrality of “love”, or as he calls it agápē .

12 Fletcher thinks that there can be moral principles but that these differ from laws . Principles are generalizations which are context-sensitive and which derive from the one law regarding maximizing love. For example, we might have a moral principle that we ought not to murder. This is a principle because we might think in that in general murder is wrong because it does not bring about the most love. However, it is not a law because for Fletcher, murder is not wrong in all situations. This then is similar to the discussion of Rule-Utilitarianism in Chapter 1.

5 J.F. Fletcher, Situation Ethics , p. 27.

13 For example, a situation might arise where the child of a terrorist would have to be murdered in order to get information to stop a nuclear attack. Fletcher would say that here is a situation where we ought not to follow the principle do not murder but rather do the most loving thing, which in this case turns out to be murder. From the universal law we can only derive principles, not other universal laws. As Fletcher puts it: “we cannot milk a universal from a universal”. 5

14 This mean that for Fletcher it might, on occasions, be morally acceptable to break the Ten Commandments. In fact, he says something stronger, that in some situations it is our duty to break these commandments. He thinks that there are four working principles of Situationism.

3. The Four Working Principles of Situationism

Principle 1. pragmatism.

15 The situationalist follows a strategy which is pragmatic . What does that mean? Well it does not mean that Fletcher is a pragmatist. “Pragmatism” is a very specific and well worked-out philosophical position adopted by the likes of John Dewey (1859 – 1952), Charles Peirce (1839 – 1914) and William James (1842 – 1910). Fletcher does not want his theory associated with these views and rejects all the implications of this type of “Pragmatism”.

16 What makes his view pragmatic is very simple. It is just his attraction to moral views which do not try to work out what to do in the abstract (e.g. Kant’s Categorical Imperative (see Chapter 2)), but rather explores how moral views might play out in each real life situations .

Principle 2: Relativism

17 Even with his rejection of Antinomianism and his acceptance of one supreme principle of morality, Fletcher, surprisingly, still calls himself a relativist. This does not mean he is a relativist in the sense that we can simply choose what is right and wrong rather it is just an appeal for people to stop trying to “lay down the law” for all people in all contexts. If situations vary then consequences vary and what we ought to do will change accordingly. This is a very simple, unsophisticated idea, like his ideas on pragmatism, and Fletcher just means that what is right or wrong is related to the situation we are in.

Principle 3: Positivism

18 His use of “positivism” is not the philosophical idea with the same name but rather is where:

6 Ibid., p. 47. Any moral or value judgment in ethics, like a theologian’s faith propositions, is a decision — not a conclusion. It is a choice, not a result reached by force of logic… 6

19 So when challenged as to how he can justify that the only law is to maximize love, Fletcher will say that he cannot. It is not a result of logic or reasoning, rather it is a decision we take, it is like the “theologian’s faith”.

Principle 4: Personalism

20 Love is something that is experienced by people . So Personalism is the view that if we are to maximize love we need to consider the person in a situation — the “who” of a situation. Summing up this Fletcher says:

7 Ibid. , p. 51. Love is of people, by people, and for people. Things are to be used; people are to be loved… Loving actions are the only conduct permissible . 7

21 These then are his “four working principles”: pragmatism, relativism, positivism and personalism.

4. How to Work out What to Do: Conscience as a Verb not a Noun

22 For Fletcher “conscience” plays a role in working out what to do. He says “conscience” is a verb and not a noun. This sounds complicated but it really is not (for complex and sophisticated discussions of conscience see Chapter 9).

23 First consider what he means when he says conscience “is not a noun”. Conscience is not the name of an internal faculty nor is it a sort of internal “moral compass”. This is how people typically think of conscience and it is often portrayed in cartoons with a devil and angel sitting on someone’s shoulder whispering into her ears.

24 Rather for Fletcher conscience is a verb. Imagine we have heard some bullies laughing because they have sent our friend some offensive texts and we are trying to decide whether or not to check his phone to delete the texts before he does. The old “noun” view of conscience would get us to think about this in the abstract, perhaps reason about it, or ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit, a guardian angel etc.

25 According to Fletcher this is wrong. Instead, we need to be in the situation, and experience the situation, we need to be doing (hence “verb”) the experiencing. Maybe, we might conclude that it is right to go into our friend’s phone, maybe we will not but whatever happens the outcome could not have been known beforehand . What our conscience would have us do is revealed when we live in the world and not through armchair reflection.

5. The Six Propositions of Situation Ethics

26 Fletcher gives six propositions (features) of his theory.

1: Only one ‘thing’ is intrinsically good; namely, love, nothing else at all

27 There is one thing which is intrinsically good, that is good irrespective of context, namely love. If love is what is good, then an action is right or wrong in as far as it brings about the most amount of love. Echoing Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus (see Chapter 1) Fletcher defends what he calls the:

8 Ibid. , p. 95. agapeic calculus, the greatest amount of neighbor welfare for the largest number of neighbors possible. 8

28 Notice that here he talks about “ welfare ” rather than “love”. Fletcher does this because of how he understands love which, importantly, is not about having feelings and desires. We discuss this below.

2: The ruling norm of Christian decision is love, nothing else

29 As we have seen in the first proposition, the only way to decide what we ought to do (the ruling norm) is to bring about love. We need to be careful though because for Fletcher “love” has a technical meaning.

30 By love Fletcher means “ agápē ” — from ancient Greek. Agápē has a very particular meaning. Initially it is easier to see what it is not . It is not the feeling we might have towards friends or family member which is better described as brotherly love ( philēo ). Nor is it the erotic desire we might feel towards others ( érōs ).

31 Rather agápē is an attitude and not a feeling at all, one which does not expect anything in return and does not give any special considerations to anyone. Agápē regards the enemy in the same way as the friend, brother, spouse, lover. Given our modern context and how people typically talk of “love” it is probably unhelpful to even call it “love”.

32 Typically people write and think about love as experiencing an intense feeling. In cartoons when a character is in love their hearts jump out of their chest, or people “in love” are portrayed as not being able to concentrate on things because they “cannot stop thinking” about someone.

33 This is not what love means for Fletcher. In the Christian context agápē is the type of love which is manifest in how God relates to us. Consider Christ’s love in saying that he forgave those carrying out his execution or consider a more modern example. In February 1993, Mrs Johnson’s son, Laramiun Byrd, 20, was shot in the head by 16-year-old Oshea Israel after an argument at a party in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Mrs Johnson subsequently forgave her son’s killer and after he had served a 17 year sentence for the crime, asked him to move in next door to her. She was not condoning his actions, nor will she ever forget the horror of those actions, but she does love her son’s killer. That love is agápē.

3: Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing else

34 For Fletcher, practically all moral problems we encounter can be boiled down to an apparent tension between “justice” on the one hand and “love” on the other. Consider a recent story:

Trevell Coleman, better known as the rapper G Dep, was a rising star on the New York hip-hop scene and had been signed to P Diddy’s Bad Boy record label. He also had a wife, Crystal, and twin boys. Yet Trevell, who was brought up a Catholic and always retained his faith, had a terrible secret, as an 18-year-old, he had mugged and shot a man. He never knew what happened to his victim, yet 17 years later, in 2010, he could no longer bear the guilt and went to the police — a step almost unimaginable for someone from the Hip Hop world. A police search of their cold case files revealed the case of John Henkel — shot and killed in 1993 at exactly the same street corner in Harlem where Trevell says he committed his crime. He is now serving a jail sentence of 15 years to life for Henkel’s murder. Yet he has no regrets; “I wanted to get right with God”, he says. Trevell’s choice was perhaps hardest to bear for his wife Crystal, who now has to bring up their teenage boys on her own.

35 This could be expressed as a supposed tension between “love” of family and doing the right thing — “justice”. Fletcher thinks that most other moral problems can be thought of in this way. Imagine we are trying to decide what is the best way to distribute food given to a charity, or how a triage nurse might work in a war zone. In these cases we might put the problem like this. We want to distribute fairly, but how should we do this?

9 Ibid. , p. 89.

36 Fletcher says the answer is simple. To act justly or fairly is precisely to act in love. “Love is justice, justice is love”. 9

4: Love wills the neighbor’s good when we like him or not

37 This is self-explanatory. As we noted above, agápē is in the business of loving the unlovable. So related to our enemies:

10 Ibid. , p. 107. Christian love does not ask us to lose or abandon our sense of good and evil, or even of superior and inferior; it simply insists that however we rate them, and whether we like them nor not, they are our neighbors and are to be loved. 10

5: Only the ends justify the means, nothing else

38 In direct rejection of the deontological approaches Fletcher says that any action we take, as considered as an action independent of its consequences is literally, “meaningless and pointless”. An action, such as telling the truth, only acquires its status as a means by virtue of an end beyond itself.

6: Love’s decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively

39 Ethical decisions are not cut and dried most of the time and they exist in a grey area. No decision can be taken before considering the situation. Fletcher gives the example of a women in Arizona who learned that she might “bear a defective baby because she had taken thalidomide”. What should she do? The loving decision was not one given by the law which stated that all abortions are wrong. However, she travelled to Sweden where she had an abortion. Even if the embryo had not been defective according to Fletcher her actions were “brave and responsible and right” because she was acting in light of the particulars of the situation so as to bring about the most love.

6. Problems with Fletcher’s Situationism

40 Fletcher’s Situationism is a hopelessly confused and confusing moral theory. Fletcher’s work has the annoying tendency to present trivially true claims as if they are profound philosophical insights.

41 At the most general level, Fletcher commits the fallacy of appealing to authority . This is simply the mistake of thinking that an argument is strengthened by saying that someone else — normally someone in “authority”, holds it.

42 Fletcher uses many quotations from famous theologians and mentions famous philosophers, such as Aristotle, as a substitute for argument. Unfortunately simply appealing to others is not an argument. To see how useless this approach is consider the following: “Walker’s crisps are healthy because Gary Lineker says so”.

43 The other concern throughout Fletcher’s work is that he is simply unclear and inaccurate, especially when dealing with the two central ideas: “love” and “situation”.

44 In some places he talks about love being an “attitude”. In other places he says it is what we ought to bring about as an end point . Which is it? Is it a loving “attitude” in virtue of which we act? Or is it about bringing about certain consequences?

45 To see why this might be problematic, consider a case where we act out of the attitude of agápē but the consequence is one of great death and destruction. Suppose we act in good “conscience” as Fletcher calls it but our act brings about horrendously dire consequences. According to Fletcher have we done right or wrong? It is not clear.

46 If he does say that what we did is “wrong” then fine, agápē should not be thought of as an attitude, but rather some feature of consequences. This reading is of course in line with his agápē calculus. Ok, so then imagine the devil acting out of hatred and malice but — due to his lack of knowledge — happens to bring about a vast amount of love in the world. Has the devil acted in the morally right way? If the “ agápē calculus” is used then “yes”. So, according to Fletcher has the devil done the right thing? It is not clear.

47 Notice it is no good saying “well we cannot decide because it depends on the situation !” Because we have just given you the details of the situation. If you need more information, just make some up and then reframe the question. So what Fletcher means by “love” is not clear. Nor is what he means by “situation”.

48 If you were writing a book on Situationism you would expect a clear and extended discussion of these concepts. However, there is no discussion of it in his key text and this is an important omission. To see how thorny the issue actually is consider the following. A politician stands up and says “given the current situation we need to raise taxes”. Our first response is probably going to be “what situation?” The point, simply put, is that there is no obvious way of knowing what is meant by “situation”. What we will choose to consider in any situation will depend on what is motivating us, what our dispositions are, what agendas we have.

49 Consider a moral example. A terminally ill patient wants to die; given the situation what ought we to do? The point is what does, and does not, get considered in “the situation”, will be dependent on what we already think is important. Do we consider his religious views, the fact that he has three cats which depend on him? What about the type of illness, the type of death, who he leaves behind, the effect it might have on the judicial system, the effect on the medical profession etc.

50 So then, as a way of actually working out what we ought to do, Fletcher’s prescription that we should “ask what will bring about the most love in the situation” is singularly unhelpful. It seems perfectly plausible that one person might see the situation in one way and someone else see it in another, and hence we get two different claims about what we ought to do. You might think this is OK, on Fletcher’s account. But recall he rejects Antinomianism (Relativism).

51 It is in fact quite easy to generate lots and lots of worries about Fletcher’s account. This is because his theory is based on a very crude form of Utilitarianism. Have a look at Chapter 1 where we suggest some problems and simply replace “happiness” with agápē. Here is one example.

52 Utilitarianism is accused of being counter intuitive. If we could only save our dad or five strangers from drowning, the utilitarian would argue we should save the strangers because five lots of happiness is better than one. But is not it admirable and understandable to save a loved one over strangers?

53 The situationalist will have exactly the same problem. We might imagine that saving five strangers would bring about more “love” than saving your dad. In which case we ought to save the strangers over your dad. But is not it admirable and understandable to save a loved one over strangers?

54 You can simply repeat this substitution for most of the problems we cited regarding Utilitarianism, e.g. it being “too demanding” and hence generate a whole host of problems for Fletcher.

55 We leave you with the following quotation from Graham Dunstan writing in the Guardian, regarding Fletcher’s book:

It is possible, though not easy, to forgive Professor Fletcher for writing his book, for he is a generous and lovable man. It is harder to forgive the SCM Press for publishing it .

SUMMARY Fletcher’s Situational Ethics gained a popular following as it allowed the religious believer to fit their views into the rapidly changing and nuanced moral and political landscape of the 1960s. Fletcher's position has a central commitment to God’s love — agápē . It is this central focus on agápē as the moral guide for behaviour that allows Fletcher to claim that an action might be right in one context, but wrong in a different context — depending on the level of agápē brought about. In fact, Fletcher thinks that sometimes what might be morally required of us is to break the Ten Commandments. Despite how popular the theory was it is not philosophically sophisticated, and we soon run into problems in trying to understand it. His position is worth studying though (not just because it is on the curriculum!) because it opens up the conceptual possibility that a committed Christian/Jew/Muslim etc. may consider the answers to moral questions to depend on the diverse situations we find ourselves in.

COMMON STUDENT MISTAKES

• Mixing up Fletcher’s use of “Positivism” with Ayer’s use of “positivism”.
• Thinking that Fletcher’s is a “pragmatist”.
• Think that situation ethics allows you do to anything you want.
• Think that love is about feelings.
• Think that by “conscience” Fletcher means a “moral compass”.

ISSUES TO CONSIDER

• Why do you think Fletcher’s book was so popular at the time of publication?
• If an alien visited earth and asked “What is love?” how would you answer them?
• How does Situationism differ from “Utilitarianism” if at all?
• If we act from love, does that mean we can do anything?
• What does it mean to say that conscience is a verb rather than a noun? Do you think we have a conscience? If you do, should we think of it as a verb or a noun?
• Why does Fletcher say that his theory is: “fact-based, empirical-based, data-conscious and inquiring”?
• What do you think a Christian would make of Fletcher’s theory?
• What do you think “situation” means?
• What does Fletcher mean by “positivism”?
• What is the “fallacy of appealing to authority”? Can you give your own example?
• Pick one challenge to Utilitarianism, and reform the challenge as one towards Situationism.

KEYTERMINOLOGY Agápē Agápē calculus Eros Legalism Pragmatic Conscience Consequentialism

Bibliographie

Fletcher, Joseph F., Situation Ethics: The New Morality (Louisville and London: Westminster John Knox Press, 1966).

Kirk, Kenneth E., Conscience and Its Problems: An Introduction to Casuistry (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999).

‘Saudi Police “Stopped” Fire Rescue’, BBC News (15 March 2002), freely available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1874471.stm

4 ‘Saudi Police “Stopped” Fire Rescue’, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1874471.stm

6 Ibid., p. 47.

7 Ibid. , p. 51.

8 Ibid. , p. 95.

10 Ibid. , p. 107.

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY 4.0 . Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

For AQA Philosophy and OCR Religious Studies

Vérifiez si votre institution a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books. Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque/établissement d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publié(s) sur OpenEdition Books. N'hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : OpenEdition - Service Freemium [email protected] 22 rue John Maynard Keynes Bat. C - 13013 Marseille France Vous pouvez également nous indiquer à l'aide du formulaire suivant les coordonnées de votre institution ou de votre bibliothèque afin que nous les contactions pour leur suggérer l’achat de ce livre.

Merci, nous transmettrons rapidement votre demande à votre bibliothèque.

Volume papier

Référence électronique du chapitre, référence électronique du livre, collez le code html suivant pour intégrer ce livre sur votre site..

OpenEdition est un portail de ressources électroniques en sciences humaines et sociales.

• OpenEdition Journals
• OpenEdition Books
• OpenEdition Freemium
• Mentions légales
• Politique de confidentialité
• Gestion des cookies
• Signaler un problème

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search

Essay Situation Ethics

August 30, 2019.

Situation Ethics is unworkable in practice. Discuss (40/40, Grade A*)

The workability of situation ethics could mean the ease of identifying a norm to use, the ease of application of the norm, or the realism of the theory itself. It could be argued situation ethics fails on all three counts, as the author William Barclay suggests in his book Ethics in a Permissive Society.

The candidate doesn’t make the mistake of trying to say everything in summary in the opening paragraph. Instead, there is concise discussion of ‘unworkable’. Always raise issue around key words in the title.

Situation ethics claims a simple, easy to define norm, that of agape love. Agape love means sacrificial love for friend or stranger. In reality it is a difficult norm to define because it implies impartiality, strict neutrality in the observe and what utilitarian Peter Singer calls the universal viewpoint. If my interests spread out from me like ripples of a pond, I naturally place my immediate family first, my friends second, and my acquaintances, third. People who are strangers lie many circles beyond immediate circles of interest. By implying impartiality, the norm of agape love is therefore both unrealistic and almost impossible to apply in practice. Which stranger do I include, and how many?

Good. Many candidates take an uncritical view of situation ethics which is arguably a difficult, challenging and demanding normative theory. Good use of another scholar – preference utilitarian Singer is famous for his ‘universal viewpoint’ – which is an idea requiring quite heroic sacrifice.

The parable of the Good Samaritan illustrates just how demanding love is. The battered man is rescued by the Samaritan who uses his donkey as transport, where priest and levite has passed by without stopping. The Samaritan even pays the bill and offers to repay any debts the innkeeper should encounter in caring for the injured man. This type of love, although incarnated by Jesus Christ, is impossible for most of us as well as being unreasonable. No wonder Fletcher posits Positivism as one of his working   principles. Positivism means we are supposed to accept situation ethics by faith, on trust. Even if we are able to do this heroic acceptance, it is nonetheless just too demanding a norm.

Excellent use of an example to show how agape works and synoptically linking this to the Moral Principles part of the Christian Thought paper. You get AO2 credit for making synoptic links.

Barclay indicates a more serious problem. Situation ethics is situated between legalism and antinomianism, between adherence to the law and an anarchic disdain for law. Yet it is unclear in Fletcher’s theory exactly what role law plays. Comparing, for example, situation ethics with Mill’s rule utilitarianism, we can see that Mill argues we should generally follow rules until our own wisdom suggest that there is a moral conflict where something has to go. For example, in euthanasia cases you cannot always preserve life and also alleviate pain: the opiod can kill you as a physician induced act of mercy.

Good critical AO2 comment here. Good use of an additional scholar – candidates should be familiar with William Barclay who is listed in the suggested reading on the specification.

Therefore, the place of law is important in society at least in preserving a barrier between simple choice (to kill a patient) and a moral dilemma (when you can’t have both moral ‘goods’). Barclay points out that society needs rules to provide a coherence to its public morality, and also to show the wisdom of previous generations. Rules pass on that wisdom and provide a basis for moral education. Rules of course don’t have to be absolute as the Bible itself shows: ‘do not kill’ cannot include killing in times of war as the Bible also permits the military campaigns of Joshua. But by failing to recognise the role of rules, Fletcher adds to the problems of situation ethics – it becomes unworkable because it places too much responsibility on individual judgement.

Excellent paragraph again showing a blend of knowledge (of absolutes and what they might mean) and a strong AO2 line of reasoning.

Finally two further working principles add to the problem with the ethics. Personalism implies we take the individual needs seriously and place them as a priority. But individuals do not exist in a vacuum. When a teenager chooses to take drugs, it affects everyone: family, school, friends and society which pays the bill for treatment. Situation ethics is in danger of becoming a narrow, almost selfish ethic (ironically as agape is selfless love). And pragmatism implies we proceed case by case. Apparently we abandon rules, the social context and the idea of society itself in simply concentrating on the case in front of us. This too is, I argue, impossible in practice.

Good reference back to the four working principles. The candidate has not mentioned the fourth one, relativism, which basically means that you ‘relativise the absolute’ the absolute being the unchangeable norm of agape. It is made relative always to the circumstances argues Fletcher. Paradoxically he calls his theory ‘principled relativism’.

In conclusion: in concentrating just on the supreme norm of agape and its too demanding nature, by analysing the four working principles and assessing their workability we can see that situation ethics is superficially attractive (all we need is love) but practically unworkable. Moreover as Barclay suggests, we cannot wisely do without rules, nor underplay their value in building a workable ethic.

AO1 Level 6 (16 marks)

AO2 Level 6 (24 marks)

This essay is shorter than many A* answers. But it illustrates something the examiner reminds us about in the June 2018 report: it is not length that matters. The essay shouldn’t be a knowledge display. Notice how the candidate never mentions any background to Joseph Fletcher, the decade he wrote in (the 1960s) or anything extraneous at all. It is a lean, tightly argued essay.

Exercise: write an opening paragraph on the same title above taking the opposite viewpoint (ie that situation ethics is workable).

Study with us

Practise Questions 2020

Religious Studies Guides – 2020

Check out our great books in the Shop

Leave a Reply Cancel

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Situation Ethics—An Introduction (1)

• By  Kortering, Jason L.
• Be the first to comment!

A SUBTLE VIEW

Its inherent evil.

This article first appeared in the Standard Bearer, for original source link click here

Mere mention of the new morality, another name for situation ethics, brings many things to mind. We think of co-eds shacking up for the semester at the pads of their lovers. Our minds wander to San Francisco and the topless waitresses serving drinks to gawking customers. Sometimes we are shocked by the news media's lurid description of Off-Broadway and its nudism. The beach does not escape the trend. Even inchurch we are distracted by the bare knees of the mini-skirted lass sitting in the pew across the aisle.

True, this has something to do with situation ethics.

Yet, the subject is broader than sex. Sometimes we mistakenly correlate the new morality with sexual promiscuity and leave it at that. On the contrary, the effects of this perverse view of ethics can be seen in many ways today. Public swearing, the carnival atmosphere on the Sabbath day, the clamor for a new theology and liturgy in the church, drug addiction, civil disobedience, liberalization of abortion laws, birth control, corruption in high offices of government, stealing and looting, to name only, a few, have their roots in this view of morals.

The truth of the matter is that unless we come to grips with this philosophy of ethics, we will not be able adequately to understand the times in which we live. What is more, unless we understand the philosophy behind the evil practices of our day, we will not be spiritually strong enough as covenant youth to reject them and walk righteously in the midst of our evil age.

Situation ethics flies under the banner of the new morality. These two names are used interchangeably to designate this approach to morals. Purposely, however, we have chosen to use the term situation ethics. There are two reasons for this preference. The first is that the name new morality is really a misnomer. Inherent in the idea of morality is the right view of conduct. We say that something is moral when it displays right conduct. On the contrary, something is immoral when it contradicts proper conduct. The practical outcome of the new morality is an abundance of immorality. The same thing applies to the designation new. In all honesty this view of right and wrong is very old. It is as old as sin itself. In the days of the Apostle Paul, some cried out, let us sin that grace may abound, Rom. 6:1 . John Calvin had to contend with the Libertines who advocated the right to sit at the Lord's Supper as well as the table of devils. The new morality is the same old whore described in Rev. 17:4, 5 , "And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand, full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication. And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." The only difference is that sometimes in history she wears a more seductive dress. In our generation she is the most enticing.

The second reason for our using the name situation ethics, is that it is more descriptive. When we speak of ethics in a limited sense, the emphasis is not on the conduct and activity of a person, rather it is upon the philosophy or outlook on life that produces this activity. The relationship between ethics and morals is that between cause and effect. It is at once obvious that one has to have the right ethics if one is to have correct morals. If someone will act unethically, his conduct will be immoral or vice versa.

The adjective "situation" added to ethics, indicates that those who advocate this science of right or wrong lend a great deal of credence to the situation. We will see how this is done, D.V., in future articles. For the present however, we may observe that the adherents to this view of ethics insist that nothing is wrong or right of itself, nothing is right or wrong because it conforms or fails to conform to a certain standard, code, or law, rather the rightness or wrongness of any act must be determined by the situation in which the act was performed. They reject legalism, in which certain acts of behavior are condemned and others are extolled. At the same time they also reject anti-nomianism (without law) for this leads to unbridled license. They insist that the Christian must be motivated by the law of love, not as it is spelled out in a code of ethics, rather as it is a dynamic power in one's whole life. The only law that exists for the Christian is the law of love. This law must be the governing rule for the Christian's life. Since no acts are in themselves wrong or right, the Christian must determine for himself on the basis of the love of God and the love of the neighbor whether he should do or not do a certain act.

If one takes time to read seriously the line of argumentation put forth by the adherents to this view, he cannot help but conclude that this approach to ethics is very subtle and for that reason, dangerous. It is not true, for example, that they blandly cast aside the Word of God and ignore it. They distort the Word of God and do violence to proper interpretation; yet the subtlety lies in this, that they claim to be the faithful adherents to the Word of God.

To illustrate this briefly (documentation will follow later), they point out that Christ distilled the entire law to its simple form of love God and the neighbor, Matt. 22:37-39 . The key word is "distilled." We ask, is this text a distillation or a summary? The difference is crucial. They interpret Paul's reference in I Cor. 6:12 , "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient," as meaning that according to the law of love; Paul claims he could do anything he wanted to, only he recognized that expedience or "the situation" had to be considered. They say that David's act of breaking the law by eating the shewbread was condoned by Christ in Luke 6:1-5 , the reason being that the situation warranted this act. Similarly, Rahab told a lie, but is still considered one of the heroes of faith, Heb. 11:16 , the situation making all the difference.

Following this "argumentation" from Scripture, those who advocate this view of ethics resort to all kinds of subtle reasonings to justify conduct that is contrary to Christian behavior. Since nothing is wrong in itself, any act could be right, it just depends on the circumstances. Murder of the neighbor in order forcefully to take his possessions might be wrong in one circumstance (a lazy man wants money for his beer and doesn't want to work for it), but in another instance it might be justified and motivated by love (a poor black man, the victim of discrimination, wants a decent meal for his family). Pre-marital sexual relations might be wrong in one instance (a young man or woman who promiscuously spends the night with anyone) or it might be properly motivated in another (a young couple engaged to be married, but completing their schooling). Telling a lie may be wrong for some (simply to be kept from being penalized by the law) or right for another (to keep a mental patient from being overly burdened). So we could go on and on.

This is subtle reasoning because on the surface it has the semblance of credibility both scripturally and morally.

If we are going to evaluate meaningfully this approach to morals, we must have certain guide lines to follow. Since ethics and moral conduct deal with the fruits of faith or unbelief, we must at once look deeper than the act itself and ask what is behind this act. What dominates the thinking of such individuals to allow them to act this way not only, but also to provide them with the conviction that this view of ethics is the only real, correct, and Christian view? What then must guide us in making such a study?

There exists a close relationship between Scripture, doctrine, and ,morals. In fact, we may picture this relationship as a pyramid, the broad basis which serves as the foundation of the structure is the Scriptures. The Bible is the revelation of God. Morality is not determined by man's relationship with man, rather it is first of all God's relationship to man then man's relationship to God, followed by man's relationship to his fellow man. God determines what is right and wrong, not man. Hence His Word, the revelation of His will, is determinative for morals. Our ethics must be Scripturally orientated or it fails.

The central message of the Word of God is not how man should behave, rather it deals with the revelation of God . The Bible tells us that God is the Sovereign Creator and Sustainer of heaven and earth, that we are totally depraved and subject to condemnation and death, that Christ is the Son of God come into the world to redeem His own from sin and death, that the way of salvation is through repentance from sin and faith in Jesus Christ, that God in Christ gathers His elect people unto Himself by the preaching of the Word and strengthens them daily until the end when He shall reign as King in the new heavens and new earth. This is called doctrine, the doctrines of God revealed in the Holy Scriptures.

Following such a correct understanding of God; Who He is, and who we are in Christ Jesus, the Christian is in a position to follow God's instruction and do His will in gratitude to Him for revealing these secrets. Ethical conduct, moral behavior follow as the sublime apex of God's revelation, for by it His name is glorified now and forever.

From this it is obvious that if one's view of the Holy Scripture is wrong, his doctrine will be wrong, and inevitably his ethics and morals will be wrong too.

This is the heart of the error of those who maintain situation ethics. They have a wrong view of the Scriptures, and this is a fundamental and fatal error. Because they view the Scripture as a human account of God's Word they take liberty with exegesis, relegate much to myth and folklore, construct their own doctrine of God, man, Christ, salvation, the church, and the end of all things. When man believes the lie about God, he will inevitably have a superficial view of human conduct.

There must be no doubt in our minds that this system of ethics is the one that is now and will be advocated by the anti-Christ. Proud man rejects God as revealed; he wants to be his own god. Since he believes that he is not a dead sinner, only a sick one, he rejects the atonement of Christ and the sovereignty of divine grace and substitutes the medicine of modem psychology and social gospel. If God is not a personal God, Who is worthy of praise and worship, religion is reduced to human philanthropy. The natural man wants only one thing, to be able to sin and silence his conscience before the God he knows to exist, but Whom he rejects. When the church teaches an ethics that tells man to sin with impunity, you have the lowest form of depravity found on earth.

We are reminded of the word of Peter, "But there were false prophets also among the people even as there shall be false teachers among you, who shall privily bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord, that bought them and bring upon themselves swift destruction. . . .for when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh through much wantonness those that are clean escaped from them who live in error; while they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption; for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage," II Peter 2:1, 18, 19 .

"Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober and hope to the end. . .as obedient children; not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: but as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation", I Peter 1:13, 14 .

• situational
• situational ethics

Kortering, Jason L.

Rev Jason Kortering (Wife: Jeannette)

Ordained: September 1960

Pastorates: Hull, IA - 1960; Hope, Walker, MI - 1966; Hull, IA - 1970; Hope, Redlands, CA - 1976; Loveland, CO - 1979; Grandville, MI - 1984; Minister-on-Loan (Hope PRC, Walker, MI), Singapore - 1992

Emeritus: 2002

Died and entered glory: Dec.20, 2020

Contact Details

• State or Province MI
• Country United States

Latest from Kortering, Jason L.

• Pentecost Fully Come
• My Lord and My God
• Jesus, Silent and Speaking
• Sins Forgiven
• Good Tidings for All People

Related items

• New Issue of "Salt Shakers" Magazine - September 2017
• Philosophy In The Light Of Scripture
• The Error of Situation Ethics (3)
• The Error of Situation Ethics (2)
• What About Investing in Shares?

Leave a comment

Denomination.

• Reading Sermon Library
• Taped Sermon Library

Synodical Officers

Synodical committees, contact/missions, classical officers.

© 2014 Protestant Reformed Churches in America. Design by Social Village .

• Introduction
• Liturgical Forms
• Church Order
• Classis East
• Classis West
• PR Churches (N. America)
• Domestic Mission Stations
• Foreign Mission Stations
• Sister Churches / Other
• Byron Center PRC - Calling Church
• Myanmar (Burma)
• India Missions
• Philippines Missions
• Covenant Evangelical Reformed Church of Singapore
• Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia
• PRC in the Philippines
• Covenant PRC Ballymena, Northern Ireland
• Newsletter Archive
• Denominational
• Miscellaneous
• Coming Events
• 100th Anniversary Celebration
• Meditations
• Recently Added
• Most Popular
• Rules for Synod
• Church Visitor Questions
• Covenant Reformed News
• Standard Bearer
• Beacon Lights
• Reformed Perspective
• Catechism Material
• Word Studies
• Officebearer Materials
• Catechism Book
• Catechism Book Distribution
• Contact with Other Churches
• Domestic Mission
• Foreign Mission
• Student Aid
• Theological School
• Public Declaration of Agreement
• Call Letter
• Ministerial Certificate
• Classical Credentials
• Subsidy Requests
• Synodical Credentials
• Transfer of Baptized Members
• Transfer of Confessing Members
• Certificate of Dismissal
• Other Languages
• PR Churches
• Missions, Sister Churches, Christian Schools
• PRC-Related: RFPA, Standard Bearer, Reformed Witness Hour, Etc.
• Misc. Reformed Blogs/Christian Resources
• Email Webmaster
• Download App
• Sponsor Church
• App Content Feed
• *Guidepost 3rd Party Investigation*

• Essay Guides
• Other Essays
• How to Write an Ethics Paper: Guide & Ethical Essay Examples
• Speech Topics
• Basics of Essay Writing
• Essay Topics
• Main Academic Essays
• Research Paper Topics
• Basics of Research Paper Writing
• Miscellaneous
• Chicago/ Turabian
• Data & Statistics
• Methodology
• Admission Writing Tips
• Admission Advice
• Other Guides
• Student Life
• Studying Tips
• Understanding Plagiarism
• Academic Writing Tips
• Basics of Dissertation & Thesis Writing

• Research Paper Guides
• Formatting Guides
• Basics of Research Process
• Admission Guides
• Dissertation & Thesis Guides

How to Write an Ethics Paper: Guide & Ethical Essay Examples

Table of contents

Use our free Readability checker

An ethics essay is a type of academic writing that explores ethical issues and dilemmas. Students should evaluates them in terms of moral principles and values. The purpose of an ethics essay is to examine the moral implications of a particular issue, and provide a reasoned argument in support of an ethical perspective.

Writing an essay about ethics is a tough task for most students. The process involves creating an outline to guide your arguments about a topic and planning your ideas to convince the reader of your feelings about a difficult issue. If you still need assistance putting together your thoughts in composing a good paper, you have come to the right place. We have provided a series of steps and tips to show how you can achieve success in writing. This guide will tell you how to write an ethics paper using ethical essay examples to understand every step it takes to be proficient. In case you don’t have time for writing, get in touch with our professional essay writers for hire . Our experts work hard to supply students with excellent essays.

What Is an Ethics Essay?

An ethics essay uses moral theories to build arguments on an issue. You describe a controversial problem and examine it to determine how it affects individuals or society. Ethics papers analyze arguments on both sides of a possible dilemma, focusing on right and wrong. The analysis gained can be used to solve real-life cases. Before embarking on writing an ethical essay, keep in mind that most individuals follow moral principles. From a social context perspective, these rules define how a human behaves or acts towards another. Therefore, your theme essay on ethics needs to demonstrate how a person feels about these moral principles. More specifically, your task is to show how significant that issue is and discuss if you value or discredit it.

Purpose of an Essay on Ethics

The primary purpose of an ethics essay is to initiate an argument on a moral issue using reasoning and critical evidence. Instead of providing general information about a problem, you present solid arguments about how you view the moral concern and how it affects you or society. When writing an ethical paper, you demonstrate philosophical competence, using appropriate moral perspectives and principles.

Things to Write an Essay About Ethics On

Before you start to write ethics essays, consider a topic you can easily address. In most cases, an ethical issues essay analyzes right and wrong. This includes discussing ethics and morals and how they contribute to the right behaviors. You can also talk about work ethic, code of conduct, and how employees promote or disregard the need for change. However, you can explore other areas by asking yourself what ethics mean to you. Think about how a recent game you watched with friends started a controversial argument. Or maybe a newspaper that highlighted a story you felt was misunderstood or blown out of proportion. This way, you can come up with an excellent topic that resonates with your personal ethics and beliefs.

Ethics Paper Outline

Sometimes, you will be asked to submit an outline before writing an ethics paper. Creating an outline for an ethics paper is an essential step in creating a good essay. You can use it to arrange your points and supporting evidence before writing. It also helps organize your thoughts, enabling you to fill any gaps in your ideas. The outline for an essay should contain short and numbered sentences to cover the format and outline. Each section is structured to enable you to plan your work and include all sources in writing an ethics paper. An ethics essay outline is as follows:

• Background information
• Thesis statement
• Restate thesis statement
• Summarize key points
• Final thoughts on the topic

Using this outline will improve clarity and focus throughout your writing process.

Ethical Essay Structure

Ethics essays are similar to other essays based on their format, outline, and structure. An ethical essay should have a well-defined introduction, body, and conclusion section as its structure. When planning your ideas, make sure that the introduction and conclusion are around 20 percent of the paper, leaving the rest to the body. We will take a detailed look at what each part entails and give examples that are going to help you understand them better.  Refer to our essay structure examples to find a fitting way of organizing your writing.

Ethics Paper Introduction

An ethics essay introduction gives a synopsis of your main argument. One step on how to write an introduction for an ethics paper is telling about the topic and describing its background information. This paragraph should be brief and straight to the point. It informs readers what your position is on that issue. Start with an essay hook to generate interest from your audience. It can be a question you will address or a misunderstanding that leads up to your main argument. You can also add more perspectives to be discussed; this will inform readers on what to expect in the paper.

Ethics Essay Introduction Example

You can find many ethics essay introduction examples on the internet. In this guide, we have written an excellent extract to demonstrate how it should be structured. As you read, examine how it begins with a hook and then provides background information on an issue. 

Imagine living in a world where people only lie, and honesty is becoming a scarce commodity. Indeed, modern society is facing this reality as truth and deception can no longer be separated. Technology has facilitated a quick transmission of voluminous information, whereas it's hard separating facts from opinions.

In this example, the first sentence of the introduction makes a claim or uses a question to hook the reader.

Ethics Essay Thesis Statement

An ethics paper must contain a thesis statement in the first paragraph. Learning how to write a thesis statement for an ethics paper is necessary as readers often look at it to gauge whether the essay is worth their time.

When you deviate away from the thesis, your whole paper loses meaning. In ethics essays, your thesis statement is a roadmap in writing, stressing your position on the problem and giving reasons for taking that stance. It should focus on a specific element of the issue being discussed. When writing a thesis statement, ensure that you can easily make arguments for or against its stance.

Ethical Paper Thesis Example

Look at this example of an ethics paper thesis statement and examine how well it has been written to state a position and provide reasons for doing so:

The moral implications of dishonesty are far-reaching as they undermine trust, integrity, and other foundations of society, damaging personal and professional relationships. 

The above thesis statement example is clear and concise, indicating that this paper will highlight the effects of dishonesty in society. Moreover, it focuses on aspects of personal and professional relationships.

Ethics Essay Body

The body section is the heart of an ethics paper as it presents the author's main points. In an ethical essay, each body paragraph has several elements that should explain your main idea. These include:

• A topic sentence that is precise and reiterates your stance on the issue.
• Evidence supporting it.
• Examples that illustrate your argument.
• A thorough analysis showing how the evidence and examples relate to that issue.
• A transition sentence that connects one paragraph to another with the help of essay transitions .

When you write an ethics essay, adding relevant examples strengthens your main point and makes it easy for others to understand and comprehend your argument. 

Body Paragraph for Ethics Paper Example

A good body paragraph must have a well-defined topic sentence that makes a claim and includes evidence and examples to support it. Look at part of an example of ethics essay body paragraph below and see how its idea has been developed:

Honesty is an essential component of professional integrity. In many fields, trust and credibility are crucial for professionals to build relationships and success. For example, a doctor who is dishonest about a potential side effect of a medication is not only acting unethically but also putting the health and well-being of their patients at risk. Similarly, a dishonest businessman could achieve short-term benefits but will lose their client’s trust.

Ethics Essay Conclusion

A concluding paragraph shares the summary and overview of the author's main arguments. Many students need clarification on what should be included in the essay conclusion and how best to get a reader's attention. When writing an ethics paper conclusion, consider the following:

• Restate the thesis statement to emphasize your position.
• Summarize its main points and evidence.
• Final thoughts on the issue and any other considerations.

You can also reflect on the topic or acknowledge any possible challenges or questions that have not been answered. A closing statement should present a call to action on the problem based on your position.

Sample Ethics Paper Conclusion

The conclusion paragraph restates the thesis statement and summarizes the arguments presented in that paper. The sample conclusion for an ethical essay example below demonstrates how you should write a concluding statement.  

In conclusion, the implications of dishonesty and the importance of honesty in our lives cannot be overstated. Honesty builds solid relationships, effective communication, and better decision-making. This essay has explored how dishonesty impacts people and that we should value honesty. We hope this essay will help readers assess their behavior and work towards being more honest in their lives.

In the above extract, the writer gives final thoughts on the topic, urging readers to adopt honest behavior.

How to Write an Ethics Paper?

As you learn how to write an ethics essay, it is not advised to immediately choose a topic and begin writing. When you follow this method, you will get stuck or fail to present concrete ideas. A good writer understands the importance of planning. As a fact, you should organize your work and ensure it captures key elements that shed more light on your arguments. Hence, following the essay structure and creating an outline to guide your writing process is the best approach. In the following segment, we have highlighted step-by-step techniques on how to write a good ethics paper.

1. Pick a Topic

Before writing ethical papers, brainstorm to find ideal topics that can be easily debated. For starters, make a list, then select a title that presents a moral issue that may be explained and addressed from opposing sides. Make sure you choose one that interests you. Here are a few ideas to help you search for topics:

• Review current trends affecting people.
• Think about your personal experiences.
• Study different moral theories and principles.
• Examine classical moral dilemmas.

Once you find a suitable topic and are ready, start to write your ethics essay, conduct preliminary research, and ascertain that there are enough sources to support it.

2. Conduct In-Depth Research

Once you choose a topic for your essay, the next step is gathering sufficient information about it. Conducting in-depth research entails looking through scholarly journals to find credible material. Ensure you note down all sources you found helpful to assist you on how to write your ethics paper. Use the following steps to help you conduct your research:

• Clearly state and define a problem you want to discuss.
• This will guide your research process.
• Develop keywords that match the topic.
• Begin searching from a wide perspective. This will allow you to collect more information, then narrow it down by using the identified words above.

3. Develop an Ethics Essay Outline

An outline will ease up your writing process when developing an ethic essay. As you develop a paper on ethics, jot down factual ideas that will build your paragraphs for each section. Include the following steps in your process:

• Review the topic and information gathered to write a thesis statement.
• Identify the main arguments you want to discuss and include their evidence.
• Group them into sections, each presenting a new idea that supports the thesis.
• Write an outline.
• Review and refine it.

Examples can also be included to support your main arguments. The structure should be sequential, coherent, and with a good flow from beginning to end. When you follow all steps, you can create an engaging and organized outline that will help you write a good essay.

4. Write an Ethics Essay

Once you have selected a topic, conducted research, and outlined your main points, you can begin writing an essay . Ensure you adhere to the ethics paper format you have chosen. Start an ethics paper with an overview of your topic to capture the readers' attention. Build upon your paper by avoiding ambiguous arguments and using the outline to help you write your essay on ethics. Finish the introduction paragraph with a thesis statement that explains your main position.  Expand on your thesis statement in all essay paragraphs. Each paragraph should start with a topic sentence and provide evidence plus an example to solidify your argument, strengthen the main point, and let readers see the reasoning behind your stance. Finally, conclude the essay by restating your thesis statement and summarizing all key ideas. Your conclusion should engage the reader, posing questions or urging them to reflect on the issue and how it will impact them.

5. Proofread Your Ethics Essay

Proofreading your essay is the last step as you countercheck any grammatical or structural errors in your essay. When writing your ethic paper, typical mistakes you could encounter include the following:

• Spelling errors: e.g., there, they’re, their.
• Homophone words: such as new vs. knew.
• Inconsistencies: like mixing British and American words, e.g., color vs. color.
• Formatting issues: e.g., double spacing, different font types.

While proofreading your ethical issue essay, read it aloud to detect lexical errors or ambiguous phrases that distort its meaning. Verify your information and ensure it is relevant and up-to-date. You can ask your fellow student to read the essay and give feedback on its structure and quality.

Ethics Essay Examples

Writing an essay is challenging without the right steps. There are so many ethics paper examples on the internet, however, we have provided a list of free ethics essay examples below that are well-structured and have a solid argument to help you write your paper. Click on them and see how each writing step has been integrated. Ethics essay example 1

Ethics essay example 2

Ethics essay example 3

Ethics essay example 4

College ethics essay example 5

Ethics Essay Writing Tips

When writing papers on ethics, here are several tips to help you complete an excellent essay:

• Choose a narrow topic and avoid broad subjects, as it is easy to cover the topic in detail.
• Ensure you have background information. A good understanding of a topic can make it easy to apply all necessary moral theories and principles in writing your paper.
• State your position clearly. It is important to be sure about your stance as it will allow you to draft your arguments accordingly.
• When writing ethics essays, be mindful of your audience. Provide arguments that they can understand.
• Integrate solid examples into your essay. Morality can be hard to understand; therefore, using them will help a reader grasp these concepts.

Bottom Line on Writing an Ethics Paper

Creating this essay is a common exercise in academics that allows students to build critical skills. When you begin writing, state your stance on an issue and provide arguments to support your position. This guide gives information on how to write an ethics essay as well as examples of ethics papers. Remember to follow these points in your writing:

• Create an outline highlighting your main points.
• Write an effective introduction and provide background information on an issue.
• Include a thesis statement.
• Develop concrete arguments and their counterarguments, and use examples.
• Sum up all your key points in your conclusion and restate your thesis statement.

Contact our academic writing platform and have your challenge solved. Here, you can order essays and papers on any topic and enjoy top quality. 

Daniel Howard is an Essay Writing guru. He helps students create essays that will strike a chord with the readers.

You may also like

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

1.5.3: The Four Working Principles of Situationism

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 89109

Principle 1. Pragmatism

The situationalist follows a strategy which is  pragmatic . What does that mean? Well it does  not  mean that Fletcher is a pragmatist. “Pragmatism” is a very specific and well worked-out philosophical position adopted by the likes of  John Dewey  (1859 – 1952),  Charles Peirce  (1839–1914) and  William James  (1842–1910). Fletcher does not want his theory associated with these views and rejects all the implications of this type of “Pragmatism”.

What makes his view pragmatic is very simple. It is just his attraction to moral views which do not try to work out what to do in the abstract (e.g. Kant’s Categorical Imperative (see Chapter 1.2)), but rather explores how moral views might play out in each  real life situations .

Principle 2: Relativism

Even with his rejection of Antinomianism and his acceptance of one supreme principle of morality, Fletcher, surprisingly, still calls himself a relativist. This does not mean he is a relativist in the sense that we can simply choose what is right and wrong rather it is just an appeal for people to stop trying to “lay down the law” for all people in all contexts. If situations vary then consequences vary and what we ought to do will change accordingly. This is a very simple, unsophisticated idea, like his ideas on pragmatism, and Fletcher just means that what is right or wrong is related to the situation we are in.

Principle 3: Positivism

His use of “positivism” is not the philosophical idea with the same name but rather is where:

Any moral or value judgment in ethics, like a theologian’s faith propositions, is a decision — not a conclusion. It is a choice, not a result reached by force of logic…

So when challenged as to  how  he can justify that the only law is to maximize love, Fletcher will say that he cannot. It is not a result of logic or reasoning, rather it is a decision we take, it is like the “theologian’s faith”.

Principle 4: Personalism

Love is something that is experienced by  people . So Personalism is the view that if we are to maximize love we need to consider the person in a situation — the “who” of a situation. Summing up this Fletcher says:

Love is of people, by people, and for people. Things are to be used; people are to be loved… Loving actions are the only conduct permissible .

These then are his “four working principles”: pragmatism, relativism, positivism and personalism.